Moments ago, at LinuxWorld Expo being hosted in San Francisco, CA, the KDE Project was honored as the winner in the "Best Open Source Project" category. On hand to accept the Open Source Product Excellence Award on behalf of the KDE development community were KDE developers Charles Samuels and Rob Kaper, as well as yours truly. Congratulations to the KDE developers, and thanks to IDG for recognizing the excellence of the KDE desktop! Update, Thursday August 30, @1:15AM: Rob Kaper has posted pictures of the award.

And Gnome drools! Or something like that.... *grin* I seriously think 1/2 of the "desktop flamewars" result because people /need/ a "home team" to cheer on. And if you're cheering someone on, it's only one step to jeering at someone else. So let's all celebrate this as very nice recognition of all the hard work that volunteers have put into this, and keep it civil! Woohoo!

P.S. As the (4th? 5th?) comment posted, nobody's yet said anything about Gnome, so consider this a premptive strike ;-)

I prefer Gtk/Gnome on X, but KDE is still a great project. :) Not my taste (besides of KHTML which is unbelievable outstanding), but what does it matter?

KDE was the first thing I saw when running GNU/Linux for the first time... it was a great feeling... :) KDE 1.x thought... I kinda miss it... *sigh* :)
There is some really bad thing about Computers and Software... everything is evolving so fast, that you have plenty of things to miss. :(

I miss the C64, the good old MSDOS, KDE 1, etc.

BTW, please all KDE developers (and fans of course), please stop beeing so nasty about Ximian.
They just do their job and I can't remember that they spoke about KDE once, while there is plenty of talk about Ximian in the KDE camp and even TheKompany does it from time to time.
I was really happy when Gnome invited KDE develoeers to Guadec, I hoped it would have changed some minds.
BTW, KDE is absolutely not better than Gnome, whatever you might think. It's just different.
Like BeOS is not better or weaker than X, it's just different.

BTW, please all KDE developers (and fans of course), please stop beeing so nasty about Ximian.
They just do their job and I can't remember that they spoke about KDE once, while there is plenty of talk about Ximian in the KDE camp and even TheKompany does it from time to time.

The reason there is ("was" would probably be more appropriate) so much talk about Ximian, is because of their past behavior. Miguel made a lot of nasty comments about KDE shortly after GNOME was started. In addition to that the Ximian ad campaign on Google was not the nicest thing either.
Hopefully, these things will not repeat itself again. Currently it looks like there is more cooperation than competition going on (between the desktops) and that is a good thing.

I agree, KDE does rule! I didn't like it much before, but last night I played with 3.4 for a few hours, and I must say I am very impressed. They cleaned it up a LOT. My old laptop couldn't even run it before without heavily swapping on the HD (I only have 192MB RAM), but now it only uses half of my memory, which obviously makes the computer run much faster. Another thing I was very happy to see was the absence of many buttons on Konqueror. It has a much cleaner interface now. Anyway, I just wanted to say great job to the many people working on KDE!

Really... why do you even mention GNOME? GNOME has a different goal than KDE and if you look at the news then you'll notice that they're definitely not drooling but making lots of progress.
So stop this useless and off-topic crap about someone-elses-desktop is better than yet-again-someone-elses-desktop-which-has-a-different-goal.
You don't hear the GNOME team whining about how Bonobo is technically superior before XParts was born, do you?

I hate to be a "me too", but I just have to say that I've been a KDE user at both home for about a year and at work for almost four months now, and have been impressed, to say the least, at the progress of the KDE desktop and office suite. This award is well-deserved.

Go talk to the XFree86 people, KDE can't do much about colorful/animated mouse pointers without some help from them. White mouse cursors would be possible, but why? I like them the way they are. Think different :-)

Everbody ever run a SDL program? They can have colored, animated, etc mouse cursors, as sdl works on X.... I think it is possible.
And plus, I think we NEED (ok, ok, we WANT actually) it on kde 3.0.
It's a shame having a nice desktop with ugly mouse cursors :(

You guys are the absolute very best there are!!
You guys deserve all the praise in the world for your hard work. We all appreciate it ver much. It's very nice to see "official" recognition (it is well deserved)

You guys are the absolute very best there are!!
You guys deserve all the praise in the world for your hard work. We all appreciate it ver much. It's very nice to see "official" recognition (it is well deserved)

You guys are the absolute very best there are!!
You guys deserve all the praise in the world for your hard work. We all appreciate it ver much. It's very nice to see "official" recognition (it is well deserved)

You guys are the absolute very best there are!!
You guys deserve all the praise in the world for your hard work. We all appreciate it ver much. It's very nice to see "official" recognition (it is well deserved)

You guys are the absolute very best there are!!
You guys deserve all the praise in the world for your hard work. We all appreciate it ver much. It's very nice to see "official" recognition (it is well deserved)

KDE is the Best Open Source Project. This is something that every KDE user already knows!

I have used KDE ever since I first started using Linux and I even use it at work now on Digital Unix machines. It has made my personal and work computer use a much more enjoyable and pleasant experience.

Congratulations on the award (but I could have told you that years ago) and thanks from all of us loyal KDE users.

Last year I said that KDE was good but still inferior to Win 98 desktop. Now I think it is superior, even superior to Windows XP desktop in terms of functionnalities. Konqueror, Kmail/KNode, Kicker, KWord are the leaders, Explorer/IE, Outlook Express, Wordpad are behind... And KDE has much more parameters to be adapted in different ways... And it is free...

It is still young, some little defaults or lacks are going to be fixed... It will take some time that the quality of the KDE work will be recognised. Today it is about the Open Source Project, tomorrow it will be about all desktops...

I hope that it is the beginnning of a new OS, Linux/KDE, already different of the GNU/Linux that some ones try to impose by speech.

Developpers, why some of you have not choose the best open source project ? There are so many things to do... It is inside KDE that you will satisfy the greater number of users, it is inside KDE that your programs will have the best future... Here you will be the most efficient... The KDE users are happy, you will be happy !

Also, I think that it would be fine to now create a third set of KDE programs (after desktop and office), something like KDE Tools or KDE Extra, with some great programs, KonCD, KWave, Quanta Plus and so...

Congratulations and encouragements for the KDE team, developpers, artists, translators and others, there are many hard things to do, you are in the good way !...

> Free in the sense of freedom. Without GNU we would not have Linux or KDE or any of the other wonderful projects out there.

Who knows ? Not in the same way, not in the same time... GNU has not the monopoly of freedom... It does not use freedom when it tries to enslave Linux with the word GNU...

I agree with the strenght of the GPL, I disagree with the GNU project.

I may say "I work on KDE", it is precise, I may say "I work on Linux/KDE" (not on BSD/KDE), I may say "I work on Linux", it is less precise. I cannot say "I work on GNU" or "I work on GNU/Linux", it is false. Directly, I don't use any GNU programs, excepted bash, sometimes... I don't think that gcc and bash are more important that the Kernel, XFree or my distro tools.. And KDE is the most important, of course...

There is no operating system called "Linux". Face it. There wasn't and there will probably never be.
Operating systems are things like FreeBSD, NetBSD, BeOS, Mac OS X, ... you get the point. There was never THE distributed Linux system. You could cal Debian, RedHat and SuSE "Operating Systems".
Linux is just a part of it, like X or KDE.
"GNU" is not about the software. There is no software called "GNU". GNU indeed IS an operating system.
GNU was almost a complete operating system, but the kernel missed. Linux delivered. Now it's the GNU/Linux operating system.
To call it "Linux" is kinda stupid, cause you could even place Linux into Mac OS X... would it still be Linux? Hm? No, it would be Mac OS X with Linux kernel. You just changed a part, not the system.
To bitch about that cause you think "Linux" is everything is really, really shortsighted.

I really can't stand this Anti-GNU zealotry anymore.
Yes, they are strange, but they are in no way evil.
They are a bit strict about free software, but that's there job after all! Like it's the job of Microsoft to promote closed software.
On which side do you stand?
I would prefer a free world to a closed world, although I don't have a problem with something inbetween!
There is a lot of Anti-GNU FUD going around and some of you are gladly picking it up.
The only party who really profits from that is Microsoft and other closed software companys.
Think about it.
Sometimes I get the impression that some KDE users are just upset because RMS was against KDE as it wasn't really free.

I think you're right except for the "linux is not an operating system" part.
Because Linux is an operating system.
It has memory management, process management, filesystems, drivers. Thats an operating sytsem, or do I miss something?

Its an operating system kernel... nothing more.
The design happens to be monolithic which means all that crap you mentioned is in one place with not too much thought about the possibility of ever serparating it.

Try using linux without ls, cp, bash, and Xwindows sometime. I bet its not much of an Operating System then. GNU Linux is the linux kernel based OS using the GNU tools to complete the project.

The BSD's have in their CVS all the source to everything you need for a complete BSD OS. This is where linux is different. All you get from kernel.org is the kernel.

Bash is not the only shell on Linux, I may easily use sh or csh, they also have ls and cp... I don't remember if XWindows is a part of the GNU project, but it is neither GPL, neither LGPL. And if something is important above the Kernel, it is the desktop for a majority of users...

You didn't get the point.
This is absolutely NOT about "what is most important so we should call it like that", it's just about the simple fact, that "Linux" is not a complete operating system and as long as there is not the "Linux OS", we need different names for it.
"Debian, "Red Hat Linux", etc are names for such system. But if you take the very basic of it (like building a Linux from scratch), you will end up using the "almost finished" GNU system with the Linux kernel. It's your choice, how you want to call it.
GNU/Linux is the most appropriate thing I heared yet. "Linux" is definetly not and it would be very stupid to find a new name for it, just because you don't like GNU.

> There is no operating system called "Linux
> To call it "Linux" is kinda stupid

It seems that nothing exists excepted GNU... The Kernel, X, the desktop, the distro tools and so and so, all is kinda stupid in comparison...

Do you really know that KDE is not a part of the GNU project ?

I feel tired that some integrists want to impose a little part of the OS in its name. You are the agressors, it is not surprising that it creates some reject... I prefer a free world to the closed intolerant GNU world. But the first thing in my choice is the good KDE work and fun... And a good mind, as the Linus one...

And I repeat that I think that the GPL is a good thing, so RMS is great. But as many great ones, he has some defaults...

What's all the fuss about RMS' *opinion*?
It's not like he force you or anybody else to say GNU/Linux instead of Linux.
Just because he THINKS that the term GNU/Linux is more correct, somehow the entire GNU project is evil?

Internet Actu is perhaps the most french popular weekly newsletter (55000 readers). Around one month ago, it replaces everywhere the word "Linux" by
"GNU/Linux" (you may verify at http://www.internetactu.com/archives/index.html#2001). I wrote to explain my desagreement. One journalist explains me that "GNU/Linux" was used with the
agreement of Linus Torvalds. I then explained that it was false, I showed the article of Brian Proffitt. In his answer, the journalist explained that he understood my position, but, alas, that he could not change the things...

> It seems that nothing exists excepted GNU... The Kernel, X, the desktop, the distro tools and so and so, all is kinda stupid in comparison...

It's really not about the software.

> Do you really know that KDE is not a part of the GNU project ?

Of course. :) And so are XFree, Apache, vi, Mozilla, whatever. I'm absolutely aware of this fact.

> I feel tired that some integrists want to impose a little part of the OS in its name. You are the agressors

We are what?
All I say is that it's more than stupid to bitch against RMS for calling it GNU/Linux. It all depends on what you are talking about.
Go on calling the kernel "Linux", no problem. Talk about "Linux based operating systems". No problem either. But if you just talk about "Linux" if you refer to any Linux system out there, I'm really confused.
There was and is no Linux OS. Simple as that. You can't say anything against this.
SO you can't say that Linus is the one who produced this "OS", cause _there is no Linux OS_.
There are a lot of OS out there like Debian GNU/Linux, Linux Mandrake, Red Hat Linux, SuSE Linux, Caldera Open Desktop, ...
They basically do just that: They use the GNU foundation tools and the Linux kernel.
So the most correct naming would be something like "The Debian operating system is based on GNU/Linux", or "The Debian operating system is based on GNU software", or "The Debian operating system is based on the Linux kernel". Interesting is, that the latter is not even true.
Debian is almost kernel independent, there is Debian GNU/Hurd and even a Debian FreeBSD project.

The interesting questions are:
1) How do we call everything based on Linux?
2) What is the main part of the free system we all use and which is a great danger to MS Windows systems?
3) So how should we call the "core" of what is similar to all current "Linux based" systems like Debian, Red Hat and SuSE?
4) Is it ok from RMS to call every current Linux based system "GNU/Linux"?
5) Why does this argument even exist?

My opinions:
1) Simple as that: "Linux based systems". Those systems are not "Linux". Like every system that uses X for the desktop isn't "Xfree", but it's based on Xfree. I know that it's more difficult to express than just saying "Linux", but it's correct.

2) Let's see... it's basically Unix. Linux is POSIX compliant and therefore almost a real Unix. It is basically a free and quite easy to use "Unix".
The kernel is the "lowest" part and talks to the hardware. On top of this, we need a lot of software, like Bash, etc. Those are provided by GNU, but most of it also by BSD and others. You have alternatives, it may be possible to build a system completely without any GNU software.
Than there is Xfree. Probable the most important part here. Why? Because most of our applications depend very heavily on X. You can port X to Windows or Mac OS and you will be able to run those applications. Now imagine a System without X. You would have to start from scratch, almost.
Next on this stack come the toolkits like Qt and Gtk. They are also very important, cause some software only relys on them. So if you port the toolkit to another graphic system, you will probably be able to port most of the apps that use this toolkit.
On the very top of this, there is the software like KDE, Gnome and all the apps.
So basically we have this structure:
- Kernel
- Environment
- Graphic System
- Toolkit
- Software
Is anything of that replaceable? No, not anything but _everything_. "Linux" is the name of the most popular Kernel for such systems, but if you talk about "Linux", you talk about almost everything that would use Linux as the base.
This is what is curretly looks most of the time:
- Linux
- Different tools, most provided by GNU
- XFree
- Gtk/Qt
- A bunch of software

Which of this is most important? I think there is no answer to this question. KDE runs on "XFree", not on Linux or FreeBSD. I don't think there is any kernel-dependent code in KDE.
Is Xfree the most important part of the system? This could even be true. While this isn't exactly the best or biggest or greatest software, it might be the hardest to replace, while everything else is quite flexible.
Bottom line: I don't know. What makes our todays "Linux" systems is basically just a bunch of software that can "free"ly mixed together. And this might BE the most important part... think about it.
The key is, that distributions can use whatever they want and that everyone can mix together everything. It is basically FREE software that lead to the success of Linux/GNU/X.
So we could refer to the whole bunch of things as "free software". But this is just a description, not a name. You see, it's almost impossible to come up with a name. And maybe that's what it is. Impossible. It maybe comfortable to have a single name for all this stuff, but it seems to just not be possible!

3) The core actually is Linux. Yet.
What if the core changes? If we refer to "Linux" as the OS all the time, we might confuse people VERY much. It even confuses me.
"Linux based" still seems to be the correct term for those operating systems. And again, there is no "Linux OS" out there. Nothing. Nada.
Maybe we should talk about Unix compatible operating systems and X. If we want to talk about a specific OS, we should really use the NAME of the system. Like Debian, Red Hat Linux, etc. Those are complete (Linux based) operating systems.

4) Most "Linux" Distributions try to be compatible. There is nothing yet that for example didn't feature Xfree or the bash.
It makes sense to find a common name for everything.
And if you are REALLY honest, you should accept that all current distributions use 1:1 the GNU system environment combined with a Linux kernel.
So YES, I find the term GNU/Linux to be quite appropriate for THIS KIND of Linux based operating systems. There might be other Linux based systems in the future, so this should be called differently so you know what's going on.
That's why I think it's ok from RMS (and me) to refer to a "GNU/Linux" System if talking about this kind of Linux based systems.
Of course this is not set to stone, there is no OFFICIAL name for anything. There just ISN'T anything like "the Linux system" which could be called "GNU/Linux". It's just an appropriate name for everything that is based on GNU/Linux.
If someone comes up with a better suggestion, great! Feel free to use it. But don't just change the name for the sake of changing, cause GNU/Linux is quite well known today.
I agree that it's not nice from RMS to force anyone to say Linux. But that's just something personal about RMS. It's his opinion and he expresses his opinion in a very strong way (that's why he is such a successfull man btw). It's not that anything bad will happen to you if you don't follow his advice. You just have to be as strong as he is, if you think that your expression is more appropriate. :) This will be difficult if you prefer the term "Linux", cause we just saw that "Linux" is terrible inaccurate and misleading if you aren't talking about just the kernel. Good luck.

5) This is simple. Because the "Linux community" is a terrible mess. Everyone is doing what he want to, there are no clear rules or even guidelines. It's just a bunch of creative chaos.
There is nothing wrong with it, but under this light, they really have NO right to insist on any clear terms. It's _their_ fault that they didn't come up with anything that could be used as a reference. "Linux" is the name of the kernel. That's it. It was made to fit together with the GNU system, not the other way round.

Linus is just a human beeing with faults, like anyone else too (like RMS).
Don't take anything what he says for granted just because he's the center of the Linux hype (which is not even really deserved btw).

? And I repeat that I think that the GPL is a good thing, so RMS is great. But as many great ones, he has some defaults...

Defaults? ;)
Well, of course he has.
But that has nothing to do with GNU, right?
So why do you call it a "closed intolerant world" or say things like "it tries to enslave Linux with the word GNU"?
That's simply not true.
I really don't understand your problems with the word "GNU". And I get sick of reasonings like "Sure, GNU did a lot for us, but who knows if others wouldn't have done it if there wouldn't have been GNU".
What a bunch of crap.
"Sure, Linux is nice, but who knows if something else wouldn't have been done something better, if their wouldn't have been Linux?"
Do you get the irony?

Quite interesting read.
And he comes to almost the same conclusion as I do.

"But I would caution the critics of the term "GNU/Linux" not to gloat in their apparent victory in this instance. For while my sense of
professionalism has bound me to one term, on a personal level, I think the GNU Project has every right to stand up and argue for this
point. The origins of GNU and Linux are intertwined more than enough to make a case for the use of the combined term."

"Just remember not to lose sight of what is really important: that it's not about personalities or egoism, no matter what some might
have you believe."

I think Brian got it right again.
And guess what? RMS didn't FORCE him to do anything, he just ASKED him to do so.
Brian still lives and RMS didn't do anything against Brian. So RMS doesn't seem to be THAT bad, right?
We need crazy guys like RMS, otherwise the world would be grey in grey.
RMS is not evil.
As RMS figured out, MS does not really fear Linux (there is no need to, Linux is not so revolutionary from a technical POV), but the GPL.
Do you remember that Ballmer said the GPL would destroy innovation and that he believes in the "American way" or crap like that?
And do you remember that Ballmer jumped around like a bunny on exctasy on a press conference, screaming out loud, how much he loved his company?
Did you ever see RMS doing anything like that? :)
Ballmer is not less (or even more) fanatic and crazy as RMS. We need someone like that on our side who is able to talk to the massses.
It's ok to NOT follow RMS in everything he says (after all he IS crazy ;)), but it's just lame to bash him for what he's doing.
Keep your energy to bash at Steve. ;)

> "Linux based" still seems to be the correct term for those operating systems.

Yes, without GNU (in the words, but with GNU things and many others in the system), and to be short, we say "Linux".

I see in your speech how you mix GNU and Free, as if any GPL program was GNU. As if anybody OK with the GPL would be OK with the GNU Project. It is not. Of course you guess that I am less opposite to GPL/Linux than GNU/Linux... and you mix these two concepts, you use the GPL as a weapon for the expansion of GNU.

But if I leave policy to return to software (and the OS is a software), I always see few GNU programs in the system I use.